Author
Topic: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published (Read 30428 times)

I've been very pleased with my "mark 1" version, so don't be too downhearted. The fact that theres a mark 2 version coming (bear in mind with Japans current situation it could be 12 months away) does not mean that the previous version is now useless.

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

True, but the timing, with rumors of a new body, the DIGIC V news, the expected 5D3 or 1Dx ... this is looking like a kit lens that'll be out this year.

ksinton

With the added resolution of Canons new sensors Canon is being forced to seriously upgrade all there lenses so that a new level of detail can be resolved.

I agree wit the earlier post that Canon is trading off barrel distortion for additional clarity. It's a good trade off since the barrel distortion can be corrected and besides sometimes barrel distortion looks good :-)

Expect this lens to be as sharp as many primes! That's why Canon is betting on this lens being a big seller even without IS.

Although I would still love to see this lens with IS. Please Canon can we have an IS version.

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

True, but the timing, with rumors of a new body, the DIGIC V news, the expected 5D3 or 1Dx ... this is looking like a kit lens that'll be out this year.

I doubt very seriously the 24-70 will make it to America as a kit lens. Too pricey.

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

True, but the timing, with rumors of a new body, the DIGIC V news, the expected 5D3 or 1Dx ... this is looking like a kit lens that'll be out this year.

I doubt very seriously the 24-70 will make it to America as a kit lens. Too pricey.

On top of that, the lenses they announced last year still haven't made it to the market. They were way behind schedule even before the earthquake/tsunami hit. Who knows what that has done to Canon's time lines.

macfly

Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.

There is some sense to that, though no one from Canon has reached out to any of the other photographers I know, including the ones they sponsor, to ask our opinion about anything they do. However it seems the 24-105 is a more useful range for a video lens so your idea makes total sense, and would diferentitate the two lenses purpose.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on IS on theis lens as shorter lenses doesn't really benefit from IS like long lenses do, and if you have the extra usable apature and a faster chip that should really offset the need for it.

ksinton

Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.

There is some sense to that, though no one from Canon has reached out to any of the other photographers I know, including the ones they sponsor, to ask our opinion about anything they do. However it seems the 24-105 is a more useful range for a video lens so your idea makes total sense, and would diferentitate the two lenses purpose.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on IS on theis lens as shorter lenses doesn't really benefit from IS like long lenses do, and if you have the extra usable apature and a faster chip that should really offset the need for it.

As a wedding photographer I think think that IS in the 28-70 would be extremely useful. My experience at weddings is that I just can't get enough low light capability (as i really prefer to shoot without a flash). The last wedding I shot was shot mostly at 5000 ISO F3.2. With a 50mm f1.4 lens. I was still only getting 1/50th of second.

I really would have liked a zoom like the new 28-70 with optics almost comparable to the 50mm f1.4 and ideally with IS. Without IS at 50mm some of my shots where slightly soft, which is a shame as far as I am concerned.

AND... that was not even a very poorly lit wedding.. like I said at weddings you just can't get enough low light capability.

Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.

There is some sense to that, though no one from Canon has reached out to any of the other photographers I know, including the ones they sponsor, to ask our opinion about anything they do. However it seems the 24-105 is a more useful range for a video lens so your idea makes total sense, and would diferentitate the two lenses purpose.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on IS on theis lens as shorter lenses doesn't really benefit from IS like long lenses do, and if you have the extra usable apature and a faster chip that should really offset the need for it.

As a wedding photographer I think think that IS in the 28-70 would be extremely useful. My experience at weddings is that I just can't get enough low light capability (as i really prefer to shoot without a flash). The last wedding I shot was shot mostly at 5000 ISO F3.2. With a 50mm f1.4 lens. I was still only getting 1/50th of second.

I really would have liked a zoom like the new 28-70 with optics almost comparable to the 50mm f1.4 and ideally with IS. Without IS at 50mm some of my shots where slightly soft, which is a shame as far as I am concerned.

AND... that was not even a very poorly lit wedding.. like I said at weddings you just can't get enough low light capability.

When people say photos are soft, they typically mean that focus was not achieved. That might be because the camera and lens are not properly matched, it picked the wrong thing to focus on or something else but...

Focus not being achieved is different to blur as a result of either the camera or the subject. IS only helps deal with blur because of camera motion.

At 50mm, you should be using the 1.2L or 1.4, which would give you a much faster shutter speed than the 2.8 for the same light.

Logged

ksinton

When people say photos are soft, they typically mean that focus was not achieved. That might be because the camera and lens are not properly matched, it picked the wrong thing to focus on or something else but...

Focus not being achieved is different to blur as a result of either the camera or the subject. IS only helps deal with blur because of camera motion.

At 50mm, you should be using the 1.2L or 1.4, which would give you a much faster shutter speed than the 2.8 for the same light.

Yeah I was shooting with the 50mm f1.4 but it's not always practical to shoot at f1.4 as I often need more depth of field than that. There are only certain shoots you can shoot wide open like that.

My shots where focused correctly... the slight softness was due to motion blur.

I have shot with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS on a crop camera and gotten crisp shots at 1/20th of second.